The universe is pretty wondrous. However, I think you have a point there. Quality of content over quality of display. Little known fact: That guy left soon afterwards. Less known fact: They hired me for the "afterparty".

commentary on exploitation and voyeurism. the girls with palsey are used to being objects of scorn and ridicule and are gawked at. The dancer is used to be gawked at for different reasons. Put together we are aware of the ways in which we gawk at different things for different reasons, much like a traffic accident that we watch for the pleasure of seeing a crash (see NASCAR events where people go for the promise of violence) thus the video game in the background featuring a simulacra of exploitive voyeurism

I'm not so sure voyeurism is really the point here. Your interpretation fails to account for the implicit theme of the passage of time (the Happy Birthday balloons, the source citations). Not to mention the interpretation given by the site's creator in the description. Prior to editing this graphic was presumably a high-definition picture, a still moment and a picture of someone's life (hence the inclusion of birthday balloons)...

Whoever took the picture had the same understanding of this event as the person that hired the stripper, which is that it will be funny to get these tards a stripper, which indeed it is. The site description is, for me, a response to that intention, and the edits in the graphics don't obviously follow the same interpretive line of reasoning as the photographer's, however good their original intentions were. The music is especially misleading---it may be techno but it's too mellow and serious to match.

The same can be said for the image and sound citations, which are each overly-sentimental reflections on the passage of time. This sort of comes around again to the point of immortality our willingness to condense "the wonders of the universe" in photograph form. The significant aspect of the video game going on in the background really isn't that it's a car crash, but that it's apparently got bitchin' graphics and the explosion is stopped mid-motion, like a photograph, referring again to the site desc.

For these reasons (and a few more but I'll shut up) I think the site's creator is sending up the photographer and the photograph, without really touching on the more obviously humourous aspect of the photo. If we think of what's going on from the point of view of enjoying life, of "living in the moment," so to speak, we can understand the lasting significance of what's happening, of these "wonders of the universe."

ambulo we are BFF now. Thnaks for the analysis. However, all these things you brought up are totally after the fact. This whole site was created without these considerations, but they seem to be contained within somehow even though I didn't see them. Sometimes we can derive meaning out of inherent symbols within a constructed art from. These meanings aren't contrived, they just need someone to pull them out.

Click, you can't deny that the optimism of the source citations and site description are out-of-keeping with the ridiculousness of the image. That's my starting point. I'm seriously disinterested in problems like authorial intention, since meaning in art is only created through the experience of its audience. But I also think it's criminal that this is your worst rated site, as it's the one that's probably haunted me the most.

This is why modern art museums are filled with sh*t like Duchamp's toilet. Modern criticism is more concerned with discussing randomly assorted found objects than objects created through the craft of art, which means that you could find more pieces worthy of interpretation in a landfill than in the Louvre. While this is fine if you're an archaeologist, it is not if your aim is elevating true art into the canon. This is what happens when cultural criticism crosses the sacred threshold of aesthetics.

guyfawkesrules thinks he's a badass but HE COULDN'T EVEN EXPLAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BALLOONS. Balloons are nature's sign that helium takes us higher. It makes things lighter, like our head, so we rise, like the pitch of our voice, above the trappings of the sensationalized world, portrayed by the flashy crashy video game(y). JUST KIDDING that's all bullsh*t. The only point to this site is look pretty colors and PALLSIES AND THAT GUY'S BALLSIES.

Korf thinks he's a Giraffe because he talks about helium like he wants to be up high in the sky and be up there with the Giraffes but he cant so he takes on a tiger-like persona with which he thwarts NARVism and Noobs on the frontpage of YTMND but he'll never be as great a superstar as guyfawkes cause guyfawkes explains things in YTMNDs that other people wouldn't normally be able to figure out also balloons.

I just find it amusing that people are constantly searching for deeper meaning in things that contain none. However, I'm a bit of a literalist myself, which I suppose makes for a sh*tty artist. But to me, if the creator contrived the piece with deep and hidden meanings, then they are there. Any insane conjectures from onlookers are just bullsh*t. I only 5'd this because the creator admitted it was made with no sort of grand artistic statements in mind, yet a few people whipped up rambling monologues

You know, I don't mind thinking a lot every now and then. Not even on YTMND. But you know what I don't like to do? I don't like having to stare at something for a f*cking hour just to get an obscure and pointless meaning out of symbols the author picked up from things I have never studied or will never have any interest in.

the main point of this YTMND isn't hard to figure out. it's an attempt at seriously examining what most would at first consider a funny image. it's be like if you took tubgirl or goatse and surrounded it with obscure imagery in an attempt to enhance its significance. it's like the original "you're the man now dog" site done backwards, which is what's so unique about it. if we can take utterances like that from films and deflate their seriousness, can we take funny things and load deflate their humour?

If that's the formula, it certainly works in reverse. But why destroy something humorous and make it serious? Just to be original? I wouldn't paint shades of gray over a mural just to make it stand out.